Category: Vatican

Kathryn Lopez, editor of National Review Online, has a Townhall.com column on Caritas in Veritate titled, “Liberal Catholics Can’t Handle the Truth.”  Lopez looks at the commentary on Caritas in Veritate, especially by the left, and shows why the encyclical should not be politicized.  The encyclical is about truth, which can not be bent to advance a political agenda, she asserts.  Kishore Jayabalan, director of Acton’s Rome office, was also quoted in Lopez’s article:

Neither side . . . seems ready to take Benedict’s theology — his own field of expertise — seriously. Part of this is a result of our habitual, liberal-democratic tendency to separate Church and State and not let theological arguments influence our politics. This tendency invariably blinds us to the pope’s combination of respect for life with the demands of social justice. … Reading ‘Charity in Truth’ for partisan purposes can yield moments of agony and ecstasy for left and right alike.

Both Jayabalan and Lopez remind us to read Caritas in Veritate without politicizing it or categorizing it left or right.

Zenit published my article on the pope’s new social encyclical:

Encyclical Offers Opportunity to “Think With the Church”

By Jennifer Roback Morse

SAN MARCOS, California, JULY 17, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI’s “Caritas in Veritate” is his contribution to the course of Catholic social teaching.

Many commentators seem to read this document as if it were a think-tank white paper, and ask whether the Pope endorses their particular policy preferences. I must say that I surprised myself by not reflexively reading it in this way. After all, I spent many years teaching free-market economics.

I distinctly remember reading “Centesimus Annus” for the first time, and mentally checking to see if I agreed with it.

But this is not the correct way to read papal documents. The papacy’s prophetic role is to interpret the past, and provide guidance for the future, while avoiding the excesses of its own time.

In “Caritas in Veritate,” Benedict XVI argues for the centrality of moral considerations in both economics and politics. Without charity and truth, we cannot create a truly decent society, no matter how sophisticated our technology or how thorough-going our democracy.

Benedict XVI stresses the centrality of the social, cultural sphere for several reasons.

First, neither the economic nor the political spheres can function entirely on their own. Both the economic and the political sectors need to be peopled with individuals who have well-formed consciences. Therefore, economics and politics rely upon the Church, the family, and other social structures that shape the conscience.

Second, the cultural sphere needs its own defense. Both the economic and the political sectors have plenty of ideological defenders. The libertarian right seems to believe that the market can manage all of society. The socialist left seems to think that the government can solve every problem and wipe away every tear.

Extremists on both sides fail to respect culture’s distinctive role. (more…)

“I vote for Democrats for one primary reason. They raise taxes on the rich.”

So says Michael Sean Winters at In All Things, the blog of the contributors to America Magazine. Of course, most Americans, perhaps even Mr. Winter, generally need excuses to raise taxes on the rich. The hottest reason at the moment is to pay for universal health care coverage. Winter likes this reason. If passed, he says that it will be the “first outstanding example of a policy that reflects Benedict’s call for a more just society,” a slight departure from his predictions at In All Things back on November 25, when he said that the now-accomplished bailouts of the Big Three automakers and the passage of an economic “stimulus” bill would help “strike a more just balance in society.”

But I digress.

Winter believes that the way to promote “social justice” includes taxing the super-rich, which he defines as “families making more than $350,000 per annum” in order to establish a new federally-controlled health care system. The good news for medical students is that you, too, can be super-rich. The bad news for Winter is that there are far more reasons to oppose universal health care and cranking up taxes on well-off Americans than just the need to “put off buying that bigger boat for a month, or doing the repairs on the Condo in the mountains” and the desire to “keep the abortion funding out of the (health care) bill.”

For example, Winter acknowledges that some on the Right will “rant that the proposal will stifle investment,” before he dismisses it as “an argument that only an academic can make.” Right he is. Only an academic would argue that Winter is wrong in saying that higher taxes could not possibly reduce investment because “whatever happens between you and the tax man, you will make investments that will earn you more income to begin with.” An academic, or someone with money in the stock market who has ever been forced to make choices after Tax Day. Regardless of their merit in any given case, higher taxes reduce investment. That is not some partisan talking point. It is the fact that people cannot put as much money in bank accounts or the stock market when the government takes money away from them. If Winter really wants to take up to $54,000 more in taxes out of the hands of as many as 6 million Americans, he better expect less investment. (more…)

Kevin Schmiesing, research fellow at the Acton Institute, was interviewed by Ave Maria Radio recently on Caritas in Veritate.  Schmiesing explains how the idea of human development and progress figure as central themes of the encyclical.  It is important to remember that our ethical advancement must be ahead of material human development, and our ethics must be paired with our personal development.  Furthermore, Schmiesing explains that Caritas in Veritate warns against an all encompassing role for the state.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Kishore Jayabalan, director of Istituto Acton, was also interviewed by Ave Maria Radio on Caritas in Veritate.  Jayabalan talks about the ways trade has brought many countries out of poverty in contrast to government-to-government aid.  The importance of subsidiarity is scattered throughout Caritas in Veritate, and Jayabalan articulates that subsidiarity should only be expanded to more remote areas of the world when the local authority is unable to respond to the needs of the people.  Furthermore, Jayabalan explains how globalization has made us all neighbors, but to Pope Benedict XVI it is important that we make these neighbors our brothers.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Kishore Jayabalan, director of Istituto Acton (the Acton Institute’s Rome office), was interviewed by Vatican Radio concerning the authentic human development concerns of the whole person, which is a topic discussed in Caritas in Veritate. Jayabalan discussed how development schemes throughout the world should look at the aspirations of each individual person.  Furthermore, in Caritas in Veritate there is a mention of a “breathing space” used a few times in the encyclical.  This breathing space aspect means developing a vibrant and diverse society and not allowing central planning to decide every aspect of a person’s life; it is also important to place the individual at the center of the development.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Samuel Gregg, Director of Research at the Acton Institute, was interviewed on Ave Maria Radio.  Gregg discusses Caritas in Veritate while addressing many issues that have risen from the encyclical.  Gregg explains that the encyclical is not a conservative or liberal document, but rather it is simply Catholic.  People should not read it through the eyes of secular political categories; importantly, when reading Caritas in Veritate, we must not think in secular terms on issues such as the free market and redistribution of wealth.  Gregg also makes a point to mention Caritas in Veritate does not say markets are evil.  Markets are good, but we must make sure they are grounded in morals — this is what makes a market good and successful.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Commenting on how Pope Benedict XVI addressed the economic crisis and development challenges in “Caritas in Veritate” is Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach, a member of the British House of Lords and Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International. He has served in an advisory capacity to the Acton Institute and delivered published papers on globalization and Third World development at the Institute’s international conferences.

Click here for the original article appearing in The Times.

July 13, 2009
The Times

Pope Benedict is the man on the money

The best analysis yet of the global economic crisis tells how people, not just rules, must change.

By Brian Griffiths

When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, his strengths and weaknesses seemed clear. Here was an eminent theologian, philosopher and guardian of Christian truth, but a man unlikely to make the Church’s message relevant to the world today. How simplistic this now looks in the light of his third encyclical, in which Pope Benedict XVI confronts head-on the financial crisis that has rocked the world.

The language may be dense, but the message is sufficiently rewarding. The encyclical analyses modern capitalism from an ethical and spiritual perspective as well as a technical one. As a result it makes the Government’s White Paper on financial reforms published two days later look embarrassingly one-dimensional and colourless.

It is highly critical of today’s global economy but always positive. Its major concern is how to promote human development in the context of justice and the common good. Despite heavy competition from some of the world’s finest minds, it is without doubt the most articulate, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the financial crisis that has yet appeared. It should strike a chord with all who wish to see modern capitalism serving broader human ends.

The Pope makes it clear that the encyclical takes its inspiration from Populorum Progressio, the encyclical published by Paul VI in 1967, at the height of anti-capitalism in Europe. It attacked liberal capitalism, was ambivalent about economic growth, recommended expropriation of landed estates if poorly used and enthused about economic planning. (more…)

In his commentary, “The Pope, the Rabbi, and the Moral Economy,” Samuel Gregg compares recent statements by Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, and Pope Benedict XVI, on the market economy and other social questions. “Benedict and Sacks rigorously deny that markets are intrinsically flawed,” Gregg writes. “Each also maintains that there are fundamental limits to state power. They do, however, insist that morality’s ultimate sources come from neither state nor market.”

Gregg demonstrates the parallels between Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate and an op-ed printed in the London Times by Rabbi Sacks:

The pope and the rabbi had a similar message, which amounts to the following. Some of our contemporary economic problems reflect a deeper moral crisis within Western civilization. Until we acknowledge this, shifts in economic policy and business practice will only provide limited solutions.

Drawing upon the parallels between Pope Benedict the XVI and Rabbi Sachs, Gregg concludes that both question “those who limit morality to politically-causes and the associated refusal of many working economies…”

Today’s Wall Street Journal Europe carries an editorial titled “Jamais on Sunday” approving of the French government’s attempt to allow some businesses to open on Sunday:

Parliament is likely today to pass a bill that would scrap the 1906 law restricting Sunday work. The law’s original purpose was to keep Sundays sacred — France’s empty churches show how well that’s worked — and the Catholic Church remains a strong supporter. But it has become emblematic of the regulatory red tape strangling the economy. Some 180 exceptions have been made to the law. For instance, a store that sells sunglasses can open on Sunday because sunglasses are considered entertainment, while a store that sells eyeglasses must be closed.

This got me thinking about Pope Benedict’s call in n. 32 of Caritas in Veritate to “prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone” and also about this Foreign Policy piece on Europe’s new “lost generation”:

Unemployment among job seekers under 25 in France has risen more than 40 percent in the past year, while total unemployment rose by about 26 percent. A third of Britain’s unemployed are under 25. Youth unemployment is nudging 40 percent in Spain.

The Baltic states, whose bubble burst so dramatically last fall, have seen the greatest increases. In June 2008, between 8.9 and 11.9 percent of young people in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were out of work. As of the last round of reported data, from March and April, those rates stand between 25 and 35.1 percent — about a threefold increase in less than a year.

[...]

The effects aren’t simply financial. One prominent British think-tanker recently warned, “If this situation persists, the risk may be of a new generation lacking the experience, qualifications, and self-belief to provide for themselves and their families.”

Moreover, youth unemployment, much more so than for older workers, carries dangerous social effects: social exclusion, depression, poorer health, social disruption, and higher incidences of crime, incarceration, and suicide. With every month a teenager is unemployed, for instance, his or her likelihood of being convicted of a crime increases.

[...]

“It’s hard to say whether a whole generation is ‘doomed,’” says Yale University political scientist David Cameron. “The cyclical component will probably start receding a bit in late 2010 or 2011. But we’ll have higher unemployment for a long time to come. Europe needs a growth rate of 2 to 3 percent a year, year after year, to bring the rate down substantially. I don’t think anyone sees that happening anytime soon, if ever.”

“The great benefit is that in a few years, when the Earth turns, there will be thousands fewer [young job-seekers],” says Blanchflower, the former British central banker. “But now, we’re just trying to get these economies moving. And unemployment, especially among young people, is a ticking time bomb.”

(HT: Real Clear World)

The Church’s position against Sunday work makes sense if people actually went to Church, just as it would be absurd for the Church to de-emphasize the great importance due to the Lord’s Day. But with rising unemployment among the youth and the degree of secularization that has already taken place, does it still make any sense?

I remember my graduate school days in Toronto when I first saw bumper stickers that read “Keep Sundays Free for Family and Friends.” I noted the noble sentiments but also the significant absence of God from the Sabbath.

So how has the introduction of Sunday business affected our understanding of Sunday worship? Should the Church argue against market deregulation that would help young people find work and begin their adulthood? Is it impossible to combine Sunday work with Sunday worship? Is it the case that once Sunday is treated like any other day of the week, the Church has already admitted defeat?

Energy has been a hot topic not just in the United States but throughout the world.  From cap-and-trade legislation to the talks that occurred at the G8 Summit, energy is making headlines everywhere.  Caritas in Veritate also addresses the issue of energy; however, it is in a different light from that which is occurring in the politics.

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict calls for us to be more conscious of our use of energy, and for larger, more developed countries to not hoard all of the energy.  Furthermore, Pope Benedict calls for the international community to be more conscious of its use of non-renewable energy and to begin to regulate the use of non-renewable.  His concern is that poor countries will not be able to gain access to energy resources, especially non-renewable energy.

The United States is the largest energy producer, but it is also the largest energy consumer.  In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2006 the United States produced 71.054 quadrillion Btu and consumed 99.889 quadrillion Btu.  These figures point out a large difference between the amount of energy produced and consumed by the United States.  At face value these figures make the United States look like an over-consumer of energy and that the Pope’s message on energy would strike an enormous note with the United States.

However, looking beyond these numbers and what they consist of, the United States is not the mass over-consumer that these numbers make it look like.  In 2006, the United States issued 89,823 patents (more patents were issued by the United States alone than the by the rest of the countries combined).  The number of patents issued in the United States can be correlated into the manufacturing that occurs in the United States.  Since the United States issued 89,823 patents in 2006 it can be expected that a large number of new products were manufactured in the United States or developed in the United States and manufactured abroad.  As a result, in order to manufacture and develop this large amount of new products, in addition to the manufacturing that was already occurring, the United States used a large amount of energy.

The Energy Information Administration also keeps records on the amount of energy used by manufacturers in the United States.  Of the 99.889 quadrillion Btu consumed by the United States in 2006, 21,046 trillion Btu was consumed by manufactures in the United States.  Since the United States manufactures a large number of goods it is able to export these goods across the world.  According to the United States Census, 1,451,685 goods and services were exported by the United States in 2006.  Compared to 2005, this number was actually up by 12.7 percent.

While the United States uses a large amount of energy it is able to manufacture goods that are exported to other countries through trade.  As a result, countries that do not have the technology, finances, or capital to increase their energy usage to manufacture more goods benefit from the United States.  The United States, who can afford to purchase energy to manufacture goods and services, can send its goods and services to the poor countries that do not use a large amount of energy and do not have the means to manufacture the goods that can be produced in the United States.  The trade the United States engages in encourages poor countries to develop so they can export even more of their goods to the United States.

However, just because the United States is able to provide goods and services to countries that do not have the means to produce such commodities, does not mean the United States is exempt from conserving energy.  We are all called for to be stewards of  Earth.  As Pope Benedict states in Caritas in Veritate, “At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it.”  As Christians, we still need to be consciousness of our use of energy to make sure our children will be given an Earth that has the same resources we are blessed to have.  Furthermore, we also need to be conscious of the condition of the poor and not exploit energy and natural resources.  Simply because we, as citizens of the United States, have the financial means that allow us to utilize and have access to energy and natural resources does not mean the same benefits are procured by those less fortunate.

In an earlier post, I already set out my own attitude of humility before the pope’s encyclical. I recognize the respect due both his office and his tremendous personal learning. There is no question that what the pope has said about the nature of truth is stupendously good.

In that post, I expressed a degree of unease with some of the economic thought, at least as I perceived it, in the encyclical. Looking it over again, here are the parts (more than any others) that cause me the most trouble:

In section 32:

The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone (italics original to the document).

And then just a little further:

Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth distribution in order to increase the country’s international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development.

Now, when I read those parts of the document, I recognize a type of thinking about the economy that I would typically associate with western Europe and pre-Thatcherite Britain. At least, it is possible to interpret the document in that fashion. When I think about prioritizing “the goal of access to steady employment for everyone” I contemplate the kind of worker security initiatives that slowly bankrupted General Motors or government programs that subsidize anti-productive schemes for workers as a class.

I may be guilty of reading too much into the words I’ve selected because I know the pope is a western European accustomed to exactly the brand of economics which gives rise to my concern.

The great question, of course, is what does the pope mean when he says we must provide access to steady employment? Does he mean that we should educate citizens and provide a culture that gives individuals initiative and the desire to be productive so they will be worth employing? Or does he mean that we should attempt great governmental schemes of guaranteed employment for working age people? Or does he mean both? Or something else entirely? I’m not sure we can know because the pope says the church does not offer technical solutions.

And when he writes about protecting the rights of workers and retaining mechanisms of wealth redistribution it is difficult to imagine he is referring to any action of the free market. But again, it is difficult to say because he is purposefully vague. What I keep thinking is that some of those mechanisms could be exactly the things preventing a nation from attaining greater prosperity. Indeed, that very question is part of why the work of the Acton Institute is important, to make sure that the faithful (particularly seminarians and clergymen) do not assume that collectivist approaches are necessarily better for people.